Bye Bye Goldwater Girl
We dont like you and your racist chairman Billy Shaheen.

we ARE GOING TO STOP YOU COLD ON jAN. 8

Hillary: you look beautiful. There is identical venom from the far left and right, but we know you America's best candidate for working Americans. God bless you

http://words-of-power.blogspot.com/2008/01/campaign-08-update-open-letter-to-sen.html

Great open letter to BO about his naive views of partisanship. The Kum By Ya candidate doesn't face a chance against the Rethugs.

Obama's support among Independents and Republicans on Thursday is going to dazzle and prove to everyone that he without question is the Dem with the best shot at the GOP. Can he beat McCain? I personally think that one is unclear at this point but he certainly has the best shot offering such a clear contrast. McCain would crush Hillary and Edwards.

I was wondering when you would show up bluepuppy. You missed the earlier post on her two minute schtick.

David, I don't know about mccain crushing clinton II and edwards. It would be way too close for confort though and he probably would beat clinton II in a squeaker.

Barack runs to the right and acts to the left, whereas Hillary runs to the left and acts to the right. I know which one I prefer.

"The Kum By Ya candidate doesn't face a chance against the Rethugs."

The idiots making this argument just don't get it. Being reasonable is not the same as being naive.

And, given the fact that Obama is currently holding his own against the lone Republican in the Democratic primary, I think your concern is misplaced.

Michael A, thanks for the welcome. I'll have to go and read it. My boss for some odd reason doesn't seem to believe surfing blogs is a good use of time.

Beat the Clinton slime machine

brewmn:

"the lone Repuglican in the Democratic Party" ?

You must be talking about John Edwards since he voted with the Republicans and against the liberal Democrats (including Senator Clinton) most often.

Clinton's ADA Senate voting record on progressive issues (lifetime) = 95% plus

Edwards's = 78%

Obama in 2016!

Hi, I'm Clinton Bush VI and I'm here to ask for your vote again. I admit I made some mistakes there, like when the vast right wing conspiracy made up that little intern lady, but then it turned out she was real and had slipped on a cigar. Embarrassing. And then when I said I was gunna smoke-em-out and hunt-em-down, but then I didn't and made out like it didn't matter no how. And then when I went after that Saddam fellow even thought I was just authorizing force, not really planning on huntin' him down and smokin' him out and such. But then we hung him and his head popped off. Embarrassing. And then them tapes with that classified stuff got lostified. Egg on my face, but then it probably wasn't torture no how and it's important to go real slow and not make big statements on that kind of stuff. Might be, might not be. We don't torture though. The use of them techniques that may or may not constitute torture would be okay -- so long as whoever is president approved them and reported their use to Congress (maybe secret-like).

So vote for me in my latest incarnation please, and keep 'er goin.

Michael Whouley is working for Hillary. Don't count your votes before they're hatched:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/16/opinion/main593698.shtml

"The times demand results. We believe as president she'll do what she's always done in her life: Throw herself into the job and work hard. We believe Hillary Rodham Clinton can do great things for our country." DMR

Wowsas,

Among the issues Obama worked on in Illinois were governmental ethics, health care reform, police practice, and low income tax credits. I'm not sure it is fair to say those issues are "completely different from the issues focused on by a US Senator, let alone the President of the USA."

Indeed, in the Senate Obama again has worked on governmental ethics and health care. But it is true he has also expanded his portfolio to work on foreign policy issues (such as Lugar-Obama and introducing the Iraq De-Escalation Act of 2007), energy and environmental issues, and so on.

As for his voting record in the Senate, I guess I am not sure why you would claim "there is definitely a pattern of voting much more conservative than his biography would imply." But generally I find such attempts at overall vote ratings pretty unhelpful, so maybe you can raise specific issues.

DTM,

I guess I would say that since coming to the Senate, I think the bills he touts as passing are basically extremely minor. At the same time, he was one of the early lead proponents of the 05 Bankruptcy bill, he's voted to reauthorize funds for Iraq twice, he's voted for Rice and was basically whipped by his fellow Illinois Senator Durbin into voting against cloture on ALito, etc. etc.

He is definitely far to the right of Durbin, and as I said previously I don't think it's a fair or intelligent comparison to take his voting record and compare against Edwards's, since the latter was representing the citizens of North Carolina. One can also "prove" that Joe Lieberman is more liberal than Jon Tester with the same analysis.

Obama has seemed increasingly, over the course of his tenure, to be particularly more DLC on economic issues than Durbin or other liberal Dems. I can't articulate all the reasons I believe this, but as someone who follows the Senate closely, this is definitely something I feel confident in saying.

One link, which does not represent the whole of why I do not believe Obama is an economic liberal, but which I think is partially illustrative is this analysis of his 05 and 06 voting records. http://votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=9490

Go to the Business and Consumers section, and you'll see what I mean. I have to believe that that's far more conservative, or "in bed with industry", than people who claim he's a "progressive" would believe. I mean, he voted with the US Chamber of Commerce, which is basically an arm of the Big Business wing of the GOP, 55% of the time! Overall, those numbers are all very high for a self-proclaimed progressive Democrat.

I watched with great hope, thinking that Obama might be my guy (and I would obviously prefer to take the guy who has the fundraising and the media support over the guy who's the dark horse; I am not enamored of taking the loser for its own sake). But the voting record in the Senate has been unimpressive, and the rhetoric on the campaign trail has, imo, been disheartening, as has been pointed out by many others in the Blogosphere.

I am a realist, first and foremost, and I firmly believe that the GOP will shoot to kill at the next Dem President. They will make their tactics of the Clinton years look like childs' play, and I believe that Obama's apparent failure to recognize that the bitter partisanship is all coming from one side (the side which branded us traitors for not going along with big flags and yellow ribbons to support a war of choice in the name of 9/11 against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11; the side that tarred and smeared all who opposed the enormous backbreaking tax cuts that redistributed wealth to the richest; the side that is currently trying to pull a bait-and-switch with Social Security by claiming that it is in crisis, when the program itself is not, only the budget expenditures and tax cuts that have been funded by surplus tax receipts from the dedicated payroll tax). I also think that the Clinton playbook of tacking to the right has been exposed and exploited, which is why we've lost these elections in 2000, 02, and 04 despite having extreme ideologues ruling the GOP, and it appears to me that Obama is fully embracing that playbook, unless you can come up with a better explanation for his (imo) otherwise inexplicable use of GOP criticisms of the other candidates of late.

Wowsas,

On a couple specific issues, Obama voted against the 2005 Bankruptcy Bill, and he proposed the Iraq De-Escalation Act of 2007, which would have mandated withdrawal of all combat troops by the end of March 2008. On the general issue, like I said, I really don't think much of vote rating projects like that.

As for partisanship, as I have noted here previously, I think from a Republican perspective, the bitter partisanship of the Bush-led GOP since the GOP took over control of Congress in 2002 through 2006 was a terrible disappointment for Republican voters. They accomplished very little of what was supposedly on their domestic policy agenda, and they now appear to be getting much farther away from achieving those goals as support for the GOP has collapsed. So I am not sure why a Democrat would look at all that and conclude that what the Democrats need is someone who would try to govern in the same highly partisan way (no matter how emotionally satisfying that might be).

As for Obama's supposedly right wing rhetoric, I think this is a baseless charge. The actual substance of Obama's arguments (e.g., that we should eliminate the cap on the payroll tax) has been progressive. But some in the blogosphere have attacked him for using what they consider to be Republican code words (once using the word "crisis" to describe the anticipated shortfall in Social Security). I think that is elevating form over substance, and generally is not a productive attitude if you actually want to make real changes.

Generally, I think it is a mistake to think Obama is advocating a "DLC" strategy. Obama's strategy is not to move toward the center on policy issues. Rather, his strategy is to reach out to independent and disaffected Republican voters, putting more Democrats in office and putting pressure on the remainder not to block the agenda of a popular President. The trick is that Obama thinks he can reach out to independents and disaffected Republican voters without comprising on policy, in part by running on issues like good government, and in part because even a lot of independents and Republicans think it is time something get done about issues such as Iraq, health care costs, and global warming.

Finally, in 1992 Bill Clinton campaigned on things like universal healthcare and allowing gay people to serve openly in the military. So, I am doubtful about the extent to which campaign promises actually lock in candidates.

lizbet,

As we have discussed here before, Obama's actual Illinois voting record does not support your assertion. The specific issue most people point to is a series of "present" votes he lodged on some abortion bills, and Planned Parenthood explained those votes were part of a deliberate strategy Obama worked out with them in advance.

On Kyl-Lieberman, it is true that Obama missed the vote because he was campaigning when the vote was called. But he released a statement at the time stating if he could have been there, he would have voted no. I am a little confused about why anyone thinks that was somehow supposed to be a political "dodge".